In Chaidez v. United States, ___ U.S.___, ___ S.Ct.___, 2013 WL 610201 (Feb. 20, 2013), the Supreme Court held that Padilla does not apply to convictions that were already final on March 31, 2010 under the retroactivity analysis in Teague. Padilla did not much change on the California law on this subject. In California, in 1987, the First District Court of Appeals held it is ineffective assistance of counsel to fail to investigate the federal immigration consequences of a disposition and to fail to advise a foreign national defendant of them before plea. People v.

Margy Love, Jenny Roberts, and Cecilia Klingele, Collateral consequences of Criminal Convictions: Law, Policy, and Practice (NACDL Press and Thomson Reuters 2013). This book covers general types of collateral consequences, attorney's duties regarding
consequences, constitutional challenges to consequences, access to and the use of criminal records, regulation of employment and occupational licensing, and restoration of rights after a conviction. It also provides insights and practice guidance.

AILA Files Amicus Brief on Mandatory Detention Under INA 236(c), and the question of the meaning of when released.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=43177

Teague is a test that governs federal habeas petitions brought under 28 USC 2255. Padilla's case was decided on an appeal from the Kentucky Supreme Court, which is not governed by these statutes. Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. 461, 505 (1993). Therefore, Teague should not govern state review of state convictions at all. See Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 273, 128 S.Ct. 1029, 169 L.Ed.2d 859 (2008). The states, however, are free to adopt the Teague rule if they wish.

Counsel can argue that Teague does not apply to first-time claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. In most direct appeals, the record is not sufficient to raise the issue "my attorney did not give me immigration advice" because that requires testimony outside the record on direct appeal. If the Teague rule applies to first-time IAC claims, it is impossible for any court ever to announce a new rule/new development in the area of IAC claims, as such a claim could not be raised on direct appeal, and would be barred by Teague in a post-conviction IAC claim.

Teague is a test that governs petitions brought 28 USC 2254 or 28 USC 2255. Padilla's case was decided on an appeal from the Kentucky Supreme Court, which is not governed by these statutes. Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. 461, 505 (1993). Therefore, Teague should not govern state review of state convictions at all. See Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 273, 128 S.Ct. 1029, 169 L.Ed.2d 859 (2008). The states, however, are free to adopt the Teague rule if they wish.

In Chaidez v. United States, ___ U.S.___, ___ S.Ct.___, 2013 WL 610201 (Feb. 20, 2013), the court stated:

All 10 federal appellate courts to consider the question decided, in the words of one, that counsel's failure to inform a defendant of the collateral consequences of a guilty plea is never a violation of the Sixth Amendment. Santos-Sanchez v.

In Chaidez v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1103 (Feb. 20, 2013), the court stated:

True enough, three federal circuits (and a handful of state courts) held before Padilla that misstatements about deportation could support an ineffective assistance claim. But those decisions reasoned only that a lawyer may not affirmatively misrepresent his expertise or otherwise actively mislead his client on any important matter, however related to a criminal prosecution. See, e.g., United States v. Kwan, 407 F.3d 1005, 1015"1017 (C.A.9 2005).

In Chaidez v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1103 (Feb. 20, 2013), the court stated:

FN16. Chaidez makes two back-up arguments in her merits briefs"that Teague's bar on retroactivity does not apply when a petitioner challenges a federal conviction, or at least does not do so when she makes a claim of ineffective assistance. Brief for Petitioner 27"39. But Chaidez did not include those issues in her petition for certiorari. Nor, still more critically, did she adequately raise them in the lower courts.

In Chaidez v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1103 (Feb. 20, 2013), the court held Padilla did not apply to a post-conviction challenge to a federal conviction on grounds that counsel failed to advise the defendant concerning the immigration consequences of a plea in a case already final when Padilla was decided on March 31, 2010. Chaidez does not technically apply to review of state convictions in state court. It held merely that Padilla does not apply to cases already final on March 31, 2010, when it was decided.